170
170
Dec 9, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 170
favorite 0
quote 0
doma cases are slightly different. i think the doma challenge is much narrower challenge and i expect it to be much more optimistic about a kind of flat-out ruling that this is unconstitutional by the supreme court. the reason i think that, melissa, doma doesn't require any state to change its marriage laws. all it says is the federal government is going to return to what the federal government was always doing before. we were talking about federalism issues earlier in the show. in the history of marriage, the federal government has always deferred to state definitions of marriage. let me give you an example. some states allow first cousins to marry, others don't because of prohibitions, incest concerns and things like that. whatever the state definitions are, the federal government has always followed the state definition. if a state says they're married, the federal government says for the purposes of benefits they're married. in 1996, the defense of marriage act departed from that practice and said the federal gover
doma cases are slightly different. i think the doma challenge is much narrower challenge and i expect it to be much more optimistic about a kind of flat-out ruling that this is unconstitutional by the supreme court. the reason i think that, melissa, doma doesn't require any state to change its marriage laws. all it says is the federal government is going to return to what the federal government was always doing before. we were talking about federalism issues earlier in the show. in the history...
206
206
Dec 4, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 206
favorite 0
quote 0
that's a big step. >> you can decide as the obama administration has not to defend doma. there's still consequences to doma being on the book and reasons why it has to go away. >> absolutely. >> if you are a same-sex couple and married it in one of the states you're now legally married and one dies you face estate tax situations. >> yeah. >> that a heterosexual couple doesn't. every time you file federal taxes you are treated differently. it says these relationships are lesser. i think we've evolved to a point this country where we accept gay and lesbian people as equal and say their relationships in the federal law are lesser than we're saying they're lesser. >> how it fits with the immigration debate as well. >> certainly. it's presently worth noting that bill clinton should maybe take a page from the joe biden playbook because he after all is the person we have to thank -- >> the joe biden playbook. >> and taking a page from it. >> thank you to ari, joy and frank for joining me today. that is all for us here at "now." see you back tomorrow at noon eastern, 9:00 a.m. pa
that's a big step. >> you can decide as the obama administration has not to defend doma. there's still consequences to doma being on the book and reasons why it has to go away. >> absolutely. >> if you are a same-sex couple and married it in one of the states you're now legally married and one dies you face estate tax situations. >> yeah. >> that a heterosexual couple doesn't. every time you file federal taxes you are treated differently. it says these...
153
153
Dec 7, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 153
favorite 0
quote 0
the doma case doesn't invite the court to answer that question. it simple says if in those states that decide to grant same-sex marriage, which is up to the states, can the federal government still refuse to recognize those marriages? even if the supreme court strikes down the doma law, it won't say anything about whether a state has to allow same-sex marriage. on the prop 8 case it is possible to rule on that case very narrowly or broadly. let me explain. when the court of appeals said that prop 8 was unconstitutional, it said you can't do what california did. you can't give the right, which the california supreme court did, and then take it away, which prop 8 did. california's the only state that did that. if the supreme court barely upholds the court of appeals ruling, that would be good for california only. if the supreme court dives fully into in and gets into the basic constitutional question about whether states can block same-sex marriage, then, yes, they would get to it. they won't -- the mere fact they took up the case, we don't know whe
the doma case doesn't invite the court to answer that question. it simple says if in those states that decide to grant same-sex marriage, which is up to the states, can the federal government still refuse to recognize those marriages? even if the supreme court strikes down the doma law, it won't say anything about whether a state has to allow same-sex marriage. on the prop 8 case it is possible to rule on that case very narrowly or broadly. let me explain. when the court of appeals said that...
160
160
Dec 8, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 160
favorite 0
quote 0
so with a doma case, it's like justice kennedy's most favorite things. because justice kennedy loves state power. >> loves state's rights. ? and he loves gay rights because of the 1996 case and the 2003 case, both of which he authored the opinion that upheld the rightings of lgbtv individuals. the doe ma case is like the perfect convergence of those two strands so, that's why i'm so confident about the doma case because it's a state's rights case in the sense that the federal government is meddling with the state definitions of marriage. with respect to the prop 8 case, i think again kennedy, because of these two cases i mentioned, is likely to be sympathetic but may be incremental. he may say something along the lines of one state or eight states have to flip. i don't think he'll flip all 41. >> we always appreciate your valuable insight. we hope you'll stick around for the next few months and continue to provide that as we wade through what is undoubtedly going to be a fairly complex case, as well. good saturday to you, sir. thank you for your time. >>
so with a doma case, it's like justice kennedy's most favorite things. because justice kennedy loves state power. >> loves state's rights. ? and he loves gay rights because of the 1996 case and the 2003 case, both of which he authored the opinion that upheld the rightings of lgbtv individuals. the doe ma case is like the perfect convergence of those two strands so, that's why i'm so confident about the doma case because it's a state's rights case in the sense that the federal government...
71
71
Dec 10, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBC
tv
eye 71
favorite 0
quote 0
the doma case has a very straight forward question. is it constitutional for a federal law to say that the government will not recognize marriages even when they're legal in the states, so that if married couples get married in the nine states where it's now legal, the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages. there's a question about whether that's unconstitutional discrimination, but if the supreme court does strike down doma, it doesn't say anything about whether the states must permit same-sex marriage, it only says if they do, the federal government must recognize them. so it's the proposition 8 case from california that potentially raises the bigger question. now, as it comes to the supreme court, it comes in a very narrow way. the court of appeals, which agreed with the trial court, that proposition 8 striking down gay marriage in california was unconstitutional, it ruled in a very narrow way. it said california was wrong to grant the right and then take it away. you can't do that, apeeldz court said. if the supreme
the doma case has a very straight forward question. is it constitutional for a federal law to say that the government will not recognize marriages even when they're legal in the states, so that if married couples get married in the nine states where it's now legal, the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages. there's a question about whether that's unconstitutional discrimination, but if the supreme court does strike down doma, it doesn't say anything about whether the states must...
188
188
Dec 8, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 188
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> the other case involves doma, defense of marriage act. what's at the heart of that question? >> not the fundamental right of same-sex marriage but whether the federal government can define marriage in a certain way, as between one man and one woman. historically that's been the job of the states to decide what marriage is, to define it. that really is the federal government stepping somewhere where it hasn't before. what they have done with that statute is say people can't have thousands of federal benefits. the case before the supreme court involves a woman who had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes she wouldn't have had to pay just because the person she was married to was the same gender as herself. it's fairness but limbed to that one state. >> patricia, always good to see you. thanks for weighing in. >> thank you. >> the deadline for the fiscal cliff is just over three weeks away. lawmakers are still mired in part in gridlock, each side saying the other is to blame. what do their constituents think? cnbc says 21% would blame the president, 23% blame republicans, 52 blame ea
. >> the other case involves doma, defense of marriage act. what's at the heart of that question? >> not the fundamental right of same-sex marriage but whether the federal government can define marriage in a certain way, as between one man and one woman. historically that's been the job of the states to decide what marriage is, to define it. that really is the federal government stepping somewhere where it hasn't before. what they have done with that statute is say people can't have...
190
190
Dec 7, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 190
favorite 0
quote 1
so i think that doma law goes by the wayside. the second question is an equal protection question and goes specifically at the california referendum which -- >> the proposition 8. >> the proposition, proposition 8, which makes it illegal under california law to have gay marriage. they will look at that under the equal protection clause. i think it's a little bit hazardous to anticipate where the court will go on that question, and i would be reluctant to do that, but that's kind of an equal protection question. the request he is will the court be ahead of where the public is or behind the public. this is a question that eventually sooner or later, probably sooner, the public will come around to recognize and already is showing by the polls that marriage equality should be considered a fundamental constitutional right. >> professor peterson, to julian's point, despite its rulings on the president's health care law, on immigration, this court maintains a conservative tilt. is this necessarily good news for supporters of same-sex ma
so i think that doma law goes by the wayside. the second question is an equal protection question and goes specifically at the california referendum which -- >> the proposition 8. >> the proposition, proposition 8, which makes it illegal under california law to have gay marriage. they will look at that under the equal protection clause. i think it's a little bit hazardous to anticipate where the court will go on that question, and i would be reluctant to do that, but that's kind of...
160
160
Dec 10, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 160
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> i've heard from the justice department on doma and not with prop 8 and makes it all the more curious. >> the justice department has, again, had a leadership position on overturning the defensive marriage act but if you take the legal position they have advocated in the defensive marriage act cases and you apply it to a situation like proposition 8, all of those anti-gay laws go by the wayside and really a question of them taking the arguments they made in one case and making them again in this other case. >> i want to read from an associated press article on the fear and hope some have regarding gay marriage. gay marriage supporters see 41 reasons to fret over the supreme court's decision to take up the case of california's man on same sex issues and nine states allow partners to marry or will soon. 41 states do not. of those, 30 have written gay marriage bans into their state's constitution. >> i'm not that worried and the reason is because i think that the supreme court would have only taken these cases if they thought that they were ripe for a decision that moves the country forwa
. >> i've heard from the justice department on doma and not with prop 8 and makes it all the more curious. >> the justice department has, again, had a leadership position on overturning the defensive marriage act but if you take the legal position they have advocated in the defensive marriage act cases and you apply it to a situation like proposition 8, all of those anti-gay laws go by the wayside and really a question of them taking the arguments they made in one case and making...
151
151
Dec 9, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBC
tv
eye 151
favorite 0
quote 1
let's start with doma. if that is struck down by the high court, thewill that be thed of conservatives' attempts of outlawing gay marriage? >> it is the mother of all federal laws to try to outlaw. it will be over it it's overturned. if social conservatives try to get smart about this stuff, looking for opportunities to play defense instead of offense, doma, which is a terrible law in my estimation, was an attempt to completely play offense. you can't do this anywhere in any state. we're going to pre-empt you before you try. i think social cons are in a much better position when they say, look, let's make it so the government can't compel us to do things privately we don't want to do. i think you'll see much more emphasis placed on that. the question will be more than what will the supreme court try to do because they don't want to be out in front of public opinion too much. it's going to be fascinating. >> and they've rarely been accused of doing that either. david, let's move on to prop 8 in california. i
let's start with doma. if that is struck down by the high court, thewill that be thed of conservatives' attempts of outlawing gay marriage? >> it is the mother of all federal laws to try to outlaw. it will be over it it's overturned. if social conservatives try to get smart about this stuff, looking for opportunities to play defense instead of offense, doma, which is a terrible law in my estimation, was an attempt to completely play offense. you can't do this anywhere in any state. we're...